View Single Post
Old 03-07-2004, 02:44 PM   #26
SkinWalker's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
First I was saying if Bush had done nothing those numbers would have been worse, since he did do something those numbers were smaller.
I'm asking: what do you think Bush did and how much larger would those number have been?

Our country has the biggest net job loss since Hoover. Surely that cannot be blamed entirely on 9/11.

Originally posted by TheHobGoblin
2nd We got attacked by terrorist, we didn't attack them looking for a fight. They have been getting slaps on the rist, I think after hitting the WTC means the slap didn't do anything.
Getting attacked by terrorists has little to do with getting involved in a war against Iraq. The only correlation is the fact that public sentiment blinded most to the fact that the Bush admin was taking advantage of the opportunity.

In addition, I don't think bombing Afghanistan back to the stone-age could be consider a "slap on the wrist." We effectively removed the Taliban leadership that was patron to Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in direct and swift response to the WTC attacks.

That was where our focus should have remained: on the so-called War on Terror. Instead, we side-tracked billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops to Iraq.

And yet, the Bush campaign feels it has the right to use the 9/11 imagery in its ads? As if the victims of 9/11 are the first concern of Bush? He's demonstrated that they are but a convenient vehicle to advance the neo-conservative agenda.

A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: